Who knows better how to score a boxing match?

[Citizen Koba]

When a fighter prevents an opponent from landing punches he gets credit for it. Not anywhere near as important as landing punches but it's a scoring criteria.

This - Defense is clearly an element but it's superceded by the number of clean hard punches landed. If the fighters cannot be clearly separated in a round on the number of clean hard punches landed on a scoring area then it becomes necessary to look at other factors such as who made the other guy miss more through their defensive work, who was controlling the action and appeared to be dictating the pace and perhaps who was more efficient with their punching.

[BoxingIsGreat]

The poster is smarter than that TV guy. NSB produces the best!

[BoxingIsGreat]

War aboutfkntime!
Your criteria is tighter.

[BoxingIsGreat]

well..... NOT YOU SON !!

because you think that Golovkin won the rematch with Canelo

and yet..... Steve Weisfeld agreed with me.....




just saying

#learnthesport
#defencecounts
#steveweisfeldknowsmorethanaboutfkntime


b,b,b,b,but.....

I don't score fights. Watching their fights, I had Canelo winning both fights.

[Citizen Koba]

Everyone who posts regularly on here and actually watches fights is quite capable of scoring a round and a fight - hell, with just a very small amount of basic terminology and explanation an average guy of the street should be able to get the gist of it (and if we moved so far away from what the general public thinks about who won a fight that they can't then probably boxing needs to rethink it's scoring system), the dumbasses are the ones insisting that theirs is the 'only' way to score a fight...

Ultimately this shit is subjective and we all got our biases, whether those are for (or against) particular fighters or for aggressive punching styles or slippery evasive styles or whatever, and what folk don't seem to get is that our biases and preferences quite literally make us see different fights from one another - we'll notice different details and interpret the details we do notice in different ways... none of us is genuinely objective and the more emotionally invested we are in an outcome (win or lose) the less objective we inevitably are.

Vive la dfference I say - we got the judges' scores and they're ultimately the ones that matter for the official record, and we got our own judgement and that is the one we each need to use when determining how good we think a fighter is... neither can ultimately be proved right or wrong because this shit is subjective, they simply are what they are.

[aboutfkntime]

This - Defense is clearly an element but it's superceded by the number of clean hard punches landed. If the fighters cannot be clearly separated in a round on the number of clean hard punches landed on a scoring area then it becomes necessary to look at other factors such as who made the other guy miss more through their defensive work, who was controlling the action and appeared to be dictating the pace and perhaps who was more efficient with their punching.

NO..... that is absolutely incorrect

you need to link me to that..... ???

those other " factors " are legitimate scoring criteria

I agree with clean HARD punching being the primary criteria.....

but the latest casual-fan spin..... that defense, effective aggression, and ring generalship..... are not even considered unless the number of clean hard punches landed just so happens to be exactly the same..... is absolute rubbish

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

NOW, do you guys see how difficult judging a fight can be..... ?

NOW, do you see how/why judges can differ on their opinion... ?

[aboutfkntime]

Everyone who posts regularly on here and actually watches fights is quite capable of scoring a round and a fight - hell, with just a very small amount of basic terminology and explanation an average guy of the street should be able to get the gist of it (and if we moved so far away from what the general public thinks about who won a fight that they can't then probably boxing needs to rethink it's scoring system), the dumbasses are the ones insisting that theirs is the 'only' way to score a fight...

Ultimately this shit is subjective and we all got our biases, whether those are for (or against) particular fighters or for aggressive punching styles or slippery evasive styles or whatever, and what folk don't seem to get is that our biases and preferences quite literally make us see different fights from one another - we'll notice different details and interpret the details we do notice in different ways... none of us is genuinely objective and the more emotionally invested we are in an outcome (win or lose) the less objective we inevitably are.

Vive la dfference I say - we got the judges' scores and they're ultimately the ones that matter for the official record, and we got our own judgement and that is the one we each need to use when determining how good we think a fighter is... neither can ultimately be proved right or wrong because this shit is subjective, they simply are what they are.

what utter nonsense

you LITERALLY just proved that you do not know how to score a fight..... and then bragged about how easy it is to score a fight

when judging a round, you must consider the following.....

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* defence
* ring generalship

YES..... ALL of it

[aboutfkntime]

the necessity for my " how to judge a boxing match, for beginners " thread...

..... was MUCH bigger than I first thought

[aboutfkntime]

This - Defense is clearly an element but it's superceded by the number of clean hard punches landed. If the fighters cannot be clearly separated in a round on the number of clean hard punches landed on a scoring area then it becomes necessary to look at other factors such as who made the other guy miss more through their defensive work, who was controlling the action and appeared to be dictating the pace and perhaps who was more efficient with their punching.

that is absolute rubbish.....

7.32



I bet you REALLY regret saying that..... and then bragging about how easy it is to score a fight..... ?

[Boxing_1013]

Steve Weisfeld was a judge for Canelo-Golovkin 2 and had Canelo winning. Hilarious if he's trying to argue Golovkin won by using Steve Weisfeld.

This thread was a response to Mr Time...with regards to how boxing matches are scored...as I referenced in my posts it is possible for a judge to disagree on rounds because even when one guy is clearly outlanding the other...the guy getting outlanded could land the better shot or shots.

Wilder Fury another good recent example of that. But yeah GGG clearly won both fights. Canelo is the cash king of boxing so judges will always rule in his favor. He brings a lot of money to the sport...and if he had 10 losses no one would care to watch him.. I don't really have a problem with it...money talks...

Was just making a thread to remind/educate my fellow boxing fans here that boxing judges only care about scoring punches landed and punch effectiveness...surprised that needed it's own thread honestly
..but yeah that's all boxing is - who is landing more and better punches...be well my friend.